Michelle Obama gave a powerful speech at the Democrat National Convention on Tuesday, making her case to delegates and the nation for her husband to get a second presidential term. She was emotional, enthusiastic, fully engaged. It moved many to tears, not just in the auditorium in Charlotte, NC, but in living rooms across the country. It will be one of the most memorable speeches given by any candidate’s wife at any nominating convention. However, now that the cheering has stopped, there is a chance to look more closely at Mrs. Obama words and be less moved by her impressive delivery.
To begin, the speech’s tone was that of one begging a parole board for their loved one’s release. Mrs. Obama did her best to convince those who do not know her man to see the good in him, to understand the man she knows, and to let her vision sway their decision. The trouble is, while an actual parole board may know little of those whose fate they decide, the American electorate is hardly ignorant of Barack Obama.
After four years, most voters know what they think of the president, and whether they support him. Further, the undecided are not likely to make up their minds based on his wife’s appeal. With $16 Trillion of national debt (more than a third of it added since Obama’s inauguration), 23 – 25 million Americans un- or under-employed, uncertainty regarding tax rates, and unhappiness with the president’s signature legislation, there are simply weightier issues for the electorate than whether Michelle Obama supports her husband’s re-election.
Moreover, what president remains a mystery four years in? After all the speeches, interviews, press conferences, and, of course, legislative and political battles since January 2009, what insight can the First Lady provide that can outweigh the impact, good and bad, of the president’s policies in the minds of voters?
Consequently, Michelle Obama’s Tuesday magnificence was, quoting Shakespeare’s Macbeth:
[A] poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more…full of sound and fury –
Signifying nothing.
However, that is not the real issue. Mrs. Obama painted a picture of the “struggling” Obamas. According to her speech, the president drove her around car with rust holes that allowed her to see the pavement, his best pair of shoes were a half size too small, and his proudest possession was a coffee table rescued from a dumpster. That is an interesting account.
The Obamas met in 1989, at the prestigious Sidley & Austine law firm in Chicago. He was a summer intern, following his first year at Harvard Law School; she was one of the firm’s associate attorneys and his mentor at the firm. By the time they met, Barack Obama had graduated from Columbia University, worked for a year each at the Business International Corporation and the New York Public Interest Research Group in New York City, worked 3 years as director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago, worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, traveled to Europe for 3 weeks, and to Kenya for another 5 weeks.
That does not sound like someone whose finances dictated trash bin furniture shopping.
Mrs. Obama also made the point that neither she nor her husband came from families that had much in the way of money or possessions. However, Mrs. Obama’s humble beginnings story was blown up by the British press during the last campaign. The report indicates the president’s father-in-law earned nearly $43,000/year, before overtime, as an engineer at Chicago’s water plant. Forty-three thousand dollars in 1975 equals about $186,000 today.
Michelle Obama’s characterization of her upbringing being modest financially seems a bit of a stretch.
So, why would Michelle Obama misrepresent her background to give herself a poorer childhood? Perhaps it relates to concerns about the president’s “blackness”, raised in the last election cycle and again in this one. Obama already has a family background and experience to which most blacks do not relate. Giving him less money as a child is a way to get more votes by making him appear more in touch.
The next obvious question is, if she’s dishonest about this, did she say anything else about the president that requires a fact-check? How about his compassion? Some may recall Rep. Maxine Waters’ (D-CA) open questioning of Obama’s concern for unemployed blacks during the president’s summer jobs tour last year:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOMYEttH5fM[/youtube]
Michelle Obama is an intelligent woman. Too intelligent not to know someone would poke holes in her speech, especially since her “humble beginnings” assertions had already been exposed. Yet she wove those debunked claims into a masterful speech, delivered with emotional power and seeming sincerity. One can only wonder why.
Perhaps she’s right about her background and all the investigative reporters are wrong. Unfortunately, that is unlikely. Perhaps she so loves her husband that, in her mind, she should be allowed a recycled falsehood or two in supporting him. That is possible. Or, perhaps she wants to guard against what Rep. Waters indicated could occur: black political leaders hearing that they can start holding the president accountable on issues that concern them. That seems more plausible.
Michelle Obama is a smart woman who knows that if black elected officials abandon her husband, then he is done. Therefore, Michelle Obama is ready to keep her husband in the Oval Office…by any means necessary. Enter Tuesday’s masterful presentation at the Democrat National Convention.
After all, there are more vegetables to grow, more dresses to wear, and more vacations to take. And Air Force Two is only hers as long as her husband remains president of the United States.
So, was it an impassioned plea, or a misleading performance? Perhaps a bit of both, but I very much dislike being misled, especially by someone who looks me in the eye to do so.
Not logged in